Pages

It’s no secret that I find the left to be a pretty disreputable bunch. I don’t have a fancy for people who want to take my liberty away and administer my life for me. I find their condescending we’re-so-much-smarter-than-you attitude particularly loathsome. Perhaps that’s why I so thoroughly enjoy it when they put on display pathetic examples of what passes for logic in the fever swamps. E. J. Dionne has provided just such a sample.

Watch the “logic”:

Tea party backers are…more inclined than the rest of us to believe that too much is made of the problems facing black people…

[Which shows that] part of the anger at President Obama is driven by the color of his skin.

Really? Maybe you could get from one to the other if you inserted a series of assumptions and if/then statements. But as written, it is meaningless garbage. It leads directly into:

Saying this [anger at Obama is racist] invites immediate denunciations from defenders of those who take guns to rallies…

You mean defenders of people who obey the law? The horror! And by the way, what’s the connection to race?

[and] threaten violence to “take our country back,”…

The evidence for threats of violence is…where? And how is this evidence that opposition to Obama’s agenda is racist? And by the way, where was the concern about the real (rather than imaginary) threats of violence during the Bush administration? Come to think of it, are all those violent G8-G12-G20-G_WhateverItIsNow protesters conservatives? How about the union thugs who got arrested assaulting people at townhall meetings last summer?

and mouth old slogans about states’ rights and the Confederacy.

Again, the evidence is where? Virginia’s recent Confederate History Month proclamation that had exactly nothing to do with the Tea Parties? What about all the Yankees at the Tea Parties? Are they French kissing the Confederacy too?

This whole sequence is nothing more than a series of non-sequiturs. It is unmodellable as logic.

Given that Dionne is an intelligent person, I see two options to explain a piece like this.
1. His intentions are good but he has serious, ideologically-driven blind spots.
2. He is intentionally sliming people he disagrees with.

Unlike the lefties I generally try not to presume to know peoples motivations. I’ll let you decide which is more plausible.